Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!mupsy!mucs!r1!chl
From: chl@r1.uucp (Charles Lindsey)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Algol-68 down for the count (was: Why have FORTRAN 8x at all?)
Keywords: ALGOL 68
Message-ID: <5179@ux.cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: 24 Nov 88 19:14:38 GMT
References: <388@ubbpc.UUCP> <16187@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <599@quintus.UUCP> <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP> <404@ubbpc.UUCP>
Sender: news@ux.cs.man.ac.uk
Reply-To: chl@r1.UUCP (Charles Lindsey)
Organization: University of Manchester, UK
Lines: 75

In article <404@ubbpc.UUCP> wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
>In article <591@tuck.nott-cs.UUCP>, anw@nott-cs.UUCP writes:
>> In <391@ubbpc.UUCP>, wgh@ubbpc.UUCP (William G. Hutchison) writes:
>> > [ I presented the argument that good languages come from individuals, ]
>> > [ and bad designs come from committees: I quoted Algol-68 ...
>> [ Andy Walker rebutted that his institution, Nottingham U, UK, used ]
>> [ Algol68 A WHOLE LOT, and they liked it A WHOLE LOT ]
>
> Andy, I now know of 2 (two) institutions that ever tried to use Algol-68 at
>all seriously, yours, and Math. Centrum in Amsterdam.

No, there were maybe a dozen Universities (notably Liverpool) in the UK who
used it as a first programming language (one or two still do). RSRE at Malvern
(a Govt. Research Establishment) used it almost exclusively (and still do to a
significant extent). For numerical work, a whole special edition of the NAG
Library was written to go with it. It was used at various places in Europe,
particularly where CDC machines were used (CDC was the only manufacturer ever
to produce a proper implementation). Currently, there is significant use in
the Soviet Union (they even have a Russian Standard in preparation). I have a
recent letter from G.S.Tseytin at Leningrad describing the present Soviet
implementations, which I could post to the network if anyone is interested.

>I submit that the reason an utterly negligible fraction of the computer
>owners in the world use Algol-68 is that the language design was inherently
>flawed, and it is my interpretation that these flaws stemmed from the
>committee-design process (primarily).

If Bill Hitchison thinks the language is "flawed" then he should say what the
flaws are. And if he does not understand the language well enough to be aware
of them, then he should not make such rash statements.

The truth is that such murky corners as exist in ALGOL 68 (every language has
some of them) are buried an order of magnitude deeper than in any other
language. The beauty of writing programs in it is that you do not have to
waste your time fighting language features which do not do "quite what you
want".

The reason it didn't catch on was the lack of compilers (I admit, it is a
swine to implement, and those few murky corners which only implementors ever
see are largely to blame). Also, the few compilers that did get written were
not particularly portable (portability was not so fashionable in those days).

Actually, ALGOL 68 was not designed by a committee at all. It was designed by
four people in Amsterdam with a backup team in Brussels checking their work.
Although a parent committee did exist (IFIP WG2.1), it had no meeting between
May 1967 and June 1968 during which period the real cleanliness and
"orthogonality" of the work was put in place. The committee got all the
language features it asked for, but the Style arose from the strong
personality of its chief Editor. Admittedly, there was much controversy and a
famous bust-up of the committee at the end of 1968, but the essentials of the
Orthogonal Style survived.

When it came to revision of the language between 1972 and 1974, the team had
increased to 8 people, but only four of us were really active in the work. I
must say that we had a wonderful cooperation (even though most of it was done
by transatlantic snail mail). I would say that this was about the optimal size
of team for such a venture - you need several people to put in ideas, and to
cross-check each other's work.

Again, we were criticised for the size and obscurity of our Report but (apart
from the Transput, which admittedly was weak, the number of known bugs in the
main part of the definition can be counted on the fingers of one hand). And
since then, far larger and less reliable language definitions have become
commonplace.

> ... and that your students have
>to do extra work learning mainstream languages after they graduate.

No. The whole point is that a student brought up on a really clean language
will be able to see the flaws in whatever he eventually meets in real life. If
all he has ever seen is PASCAL, or BASIC, or FORTRAN, then he will imagine
that the world really is a horrible place and he will not yearn for anything
better.

Charles Lindsey		chl@ux.cs.man.ac.uk.uucp